06 April 2013 9:27 AM

BBC Radio 4 'Any Questions' 1.10 pm Saturday 6th April

Readers may be interested to know that I am on the panel for this discussion programme - the radio original on which BBC TV's 'Question Time' is based. It was recorded in (and transmitted live from) the Oxfordshire town of Abingdon on Friday evening.

Subjects under discussion include the Philpott case, bankers, the class system, Trident replacement and hate crime.

On the panel (almost identical to my last appearance on QT), The Right Honourable Lord Heseltine, Companion of Honour, Diane Abbott and the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb.

Watch out for the bit (33 minutes in) where I clash with the Right Honourable Lord Helseltine, Companion of Honour, over Trident replacement. He says 'You used to be in the Socialist Workers Party'. I say 'You used to be a conservative'. Amongst other things.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Here is my 1 comment on this blog entry, hence sorry no replies.

As Ms Abbot pointed out, we've got to get more jobs in the country again, and everybody is agreed about that, but not about *how.*

So Mrs Thatcher's suggestion was we all start *small businesses*, which idea Ted Heath himself criticised as unrealistic, and now around 30 years later it has been proven the case.

Most people simply cannot create their own work in a very competitive overpopulated environment, and many, possibly millions, have lost their savings trying to do that, including even some lottery winners recently mentioned in the news.

It's all about "the fool and his money soon parted" and most of us are fools in business, unless we have learned it the hard way by a long apprenticeship, which generally means having some kind of *mentor*, who now don't greatly exist, or just being a "born entrepreneur", who is busy making money in the playground while all the other children are playing conkers.

So our conclusion and in fact starting point must be *the poor cannot create their own jobs*, except in crime, drugs or as cowboy builders, prostitutes, etc.

So what's the answer?

The Conservatives claim to have created a million jobs someone said lately. I don't believe it, and even if they have, it's obviously still about 5 million too few.

Jobs can only *ever* be created in *large numbers* at this stage, now we have farms and factories in which amazing machines replace the work of hundreds and collectively millions, in the last place of all the Conservatives want to put them - *the public services.*

The workforce has to be mainly built on *the (efficiently run) public services*, not on private enterprises, because private enterprise is never going to be able to make a profit out of cleaning the streets, rivers, and health, education, the police and the armed forces.

Conservatives constantly go on about the "wealth creators."

It's an enormous lie. All the so called "wealth creator" ever does is cleverly *steals* the natural resources, labour and skills of everybody else, to make himself wealthy.

I'm not a Scargill type "Marxist", I'm not saying let's hang him (or increasingly *her*), I'm saying that what we do with such ultimately antisocial people, who can't cope without having a lot more of everything than everybody else, is not to spill their blood like the French Revolution, but make them pay it in *tax.*

The *only* thing that can save us is *massive* tax increases on all who can afford it, and the benefit, is they get *quality public services*, our society becomes a decent place to live, without excess welfare bills.

The richer/wealthier *still* get "slaves" to work for them, collecting their rubbish, teaching their children, policing their streets, but what they are is *well paid* slaves, who at least can afford to fund a modest home and family instead of having no social status or genuine security whatsoever.

Must politicians always sound like they are on the campaign trail? I suppose this is part of the price of power, but I'd like to think that there are times when they can just honestly and disinterestedly address an argument in public debate.

Wouldn't Lady Thatcher have been a great guest on a programme like this when she was at the height of her powers? Even if you disagreed with her, you could allow that she spoke her mind boldly and forcefully, knew the issues and was sane and honourable, unlike any contemporary national leader that I can think of.

Why doesn't Lord Heseltine's attempt at a smear, that Peter Hitchens used to be a communist, backfire on him? Doesn't it occur to many that it is an indicator that one may not have done much honest thinking about oneself if one has not changed one's mind about the world since one's youth?

Mr Heseltine says that Mr Hitchens is an ex Communist or Socialist but Mr Heseltine believes that the role of the State is to be in partnership with business and last time I checked that makes him a Fascist - in favour of the corporatist State.Tea with Mussolini...

Was Heseltine wearing his Guards tie on Any Questions? He has worn it on many more days than he ever served in the Welsh Guards.

After multiple deferrals, he was finally called up in the very last year of National Service. But was let out again after a few months because the Conservatives, or technically the National Liberals, needed him to fight the no hope seat of Gower. He was then let off the rest because his business career was deemed to have been so important. He was 26.

He had been old enough both for Korea and for Suez. But he never served in either, due to his family connections. Oh, and he wears the tie incorrectly, with the red stripe across the knot, which is wrong. It used to be worn correctly, and far more honourably, by Tommy Cooper.

However, Heseltine does have an opportunity to earn it, even now, more than 50 years later. In 1947, the Welsh Guards were deployed to British Palestine, where they remained until being bombed out by the founders of modern terrorism, people who had tried to do a deal with Hitler at the height of the War.

No memorial exists, anywhere in the world, to the British victims, on British territory, of those pioneering terrorists. In his Welsh Guardsman's tie, what is The Lord Heseltine CH going to do about this national disgrace?

Peter Hitchens called for Trident money to be spent on the real nuclear deterrent, civil nuclear power, "since we were stupid enough to abandon coal," an obvious, and richly deserved, dig, so to speak, at Heseltine. And Diane Abbott called for it to be spent on essential kit and provisions for the existing Armed Forces. In that order, those two positions are fully compatible with each other.

Nor would there be any difficulty in finding out of that supply the cash needed to erect the Palestine Memorial. As near to the Cenotaph as possible. What says The Lord Heseltine CH? He could unveil the National Memorial to the Fallen of British Palestine. While he was wearing his Guards tie. Of course.

Hitchens made some good points during the programme but his contibution on the banker segment was unbelievably shallow. He said he was growing increasingly weary of bankers being demonised (or words to that effect), as "we" were all to blame for the financial crisis. Oh dear me yes! Let's not be beastly to the bankers. Don't you know they are victims too! victims of the wicked system! Only hang 'em and flog 'em reactionaries would wish to demonise them for their unfortunate addiction to taxpayers' money. These hapless welfare dependants need our understanding and compassion, not to be denounced as spongers or parasites. Such bigoted name calling can only exacerbate their alienation from society and make them even more hostile to societal norms and the forces of law and order. And anyway, aren't we all in a sense to blame for their sociopathic behaviour? Haven't we all contributed to the environment that has created such addiction to scrounging? We need to condemn less and understand more.

Personally I'm having none of this. I still believe in the old fashioned distinction between the deserving rich and the undeserving rich. False compassion should not blind us to the reality that the bankers most definitely fall into the latter category. Nor do I believe the bankers are truly addicted in the medical sense of the term. On the contrary all the evidence suggests that they demand huge quantities of taxpayers' money, not because they suffer from any identifiable medical condition, but because they enjoy doing so. As long as the law against ripping off the taxpayer is not enforced these miscreants will continue to engage in their wicked behaviour. There has been no war against bankers defrauding the taxpayer. Everyone knows such fraud has been in effect decriminalised, and we are all living with the consequences. It is of no earthly use simply punishing those who supply the money to the bank scroungers; the scroungers themselves must also be punished if we are serious about tackling this crisis.

Dianne Abbott (or Di’anne as that old phony Michael Heseltine curiously insists on calling her) repeatedly termed questions she could not (chose not to) answer as ‘misleading statements’. How do politicians get away with this? Peter Hitchens chastised the audience for voting for these disingenuous politician types by continually voting for them and got applause for his efforts - progress is being made, plummy voice or not.

I was listening to the debate as it was taking place - and laughed at your above mentioned retort to Lord Heseltine. I also was under the impression, true or not, that it was a much more even tempered debate than its almost equivalent on QT a few weeks ago when Heseltine made his outrageous comments to you about you disrespecting young British servicemen. Also judging by audience applause for your comments Peter, I was left with the impression that the audience were much more favourable to your comments than you usually receive on QT. I also caught the tail end of your programme with Matthew Parris on the subject of Rev Bell and his denunciation of Allied bombings on german civilians. Very interesting indeed.

Is it just me, or did "Any Questions?" and its television counterpart used to be interesting listening? Nowadays, I half-listen to these broadcasts in the hope of hearing some fresh thinking and am ever disappointed. Three or four panellists, drawn from the same tired pool of party mouthpieces, plus one supposed to be a maverick of free-thinker of some sort--the role in which Mr Hitchens was cast on this occasion--and who is invariably the only one who might provide an insight capable of pointing a way out of the mess that the party drones have helped us into. Each week I listen to the Chair announce his panel, and my heart sinks. For goodness' sake, there must be dozens of articulate radicals out there who have a different take on how society could be improved: let's hear what they have to say!!

Have you read Andrew Alexander's America and the Imperialism of Ignorance? He seems to think that Russia did not pose a serious threat to Britain during the Cold War, which seems at odds with your comments during this programme, but in some way similar to your thoughts about Germany in the 1930s. Do you think Russia posed a bigger threat to Britain during the Cold War than Germany did during the 1930s?

Its not often that i agree with Diane Abbott but she was correct about benefits.
It was bad of George Osbourne to use a low life like Mr Philpott as an example when talking about benefits.Its as if he wants to group people on benefits with a waste of space like Philpott.
As Diane Abbott mentioned most benefits go on people who are working in this country,as usual Osbourne is not thinking.
I liked the way Peter Hitchens replied to Heseltine,if that were a boxing match,Heseltine would have been on the floor with that cut.
Hitchens always has a brilliant answer.

(I hope this is somewhat related to the topics on Any Questions.) I finally finished The Constitution of Liberty after over a year of reading in short sessions on buses, trains, streetcars and minivans. It was hard but satisfying because Prof. Hayek was so knowledgeable and wise about so many various things. I can see how he has influenced much contemporary thought and discussion. I am grateful that I've learned a lot from him. However, I am also grateful that I was exposed to Hitchens beforehand or I might now be more libertarian than conservative!

One of the issues that best illustrates Hayek's difference with Hitchens is selection and Grammar Schools. I thought Hayek was at his weakest on that despite the fact that education was one of his greatest concerns. I sympathize with Hayek's great love of utter freedom of thought, but I don't think that he had one substantive reason against grammars. Writing as a British subject in 1960 when the tripartite system was still in operation, he saw selection as characteristic of the Welfare State that he was condemning. I think that his most compelling objection was that selection increased the rigidity of social inequality because grammar school graduates were perceived to have inherent superiority over the rest instead of just getting lucky by the accident of birth. Nevertheless, although unpleasant, this still seems rather trivial: we all must deal with objective measures of our inferiority in school and life, anyway (or at least we all used to). By the way, it may be that Hayek has been misconstrued by advocates of comprehensive education for having attacked the grammars for inhibiting social mobility as it is usually understood. On the contrary, he approvingly quoted a New Statesman review of D.V. Glass' “Social Mobility in Britain” as follows: “the educational dilemma is that the desire to produce a more 'open' society may simply end in one which, *while flexible so far as individuals are concerned*, is just as rigidly stratified on an I.Q. basis as it was once by birth (emphasis mine).” It is noteworthy that Hayek did not say that the grammar schools did a poor job. And I wonder: did Hayek, as Hitchens described Stefan Zweig last year, despise the probably excellent Austrian education that he received as mechanical and dull?

I could write far, far more about education and everything else in this very thought-provoking and influential book. Although I disagree with a lot of it, I admire and respect both the work and its author. I'd like to write an essay in response to his postscript, “Why I Am Not a Conservative” if I could, but I'll just point out that the alliance that he proposed for Old Whigs (libertarians) like himself with progressives against we supposedly change-phobic, principle-free, social conservatives has been transforming the world since he proposed it, and don't we all just love the results? He lived till 1992 – I wonder what he thought of the results?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.